The Meta Post: Reflections

Looking back at the blog posts I've done this semester, nothing jumps out more than my obvious fascination with politics and significant events going on in the world. Of my 15 blog posts, the vast majority consisted of content pertaining to the presidential race, American foreign policy, and the economy, on top of other current events. It's clear that I take a deep interest in these issues, and as I worked my way into the first semster, my posts went through a general trend of becoming more focused, more open-ended, and more pertinant to the issues facing America today.

Consider my very first blog post, which can be viewed here. Although at the time I had been proud of my work and the effort I put into explaining my opinion on economics, it's clear that I got way too technical, especially for a blog starter. And after finishing the blog post, it would seem that the reader would not be left thinking. Although I posed a question at the bottom, asking, "Would an economy really benefit if we had people digging holes in the ground just for the sake of employment?", it was way too directed, and the reader would most likely walk away more or less empty-minded. Instead, a broader, more open ended question would have done the trick, such as, "Is the amount of employment an accurate measurement for the state of an economy?" A question like this would have offered the reader more room to think. But as a whole, my first attempt wasn't in vain, and I continued to progress during the year.

A few weeks later, I wrote another blog post, which can be viewed here. In this post, I made an attempt at avoiding political issues, and instead sticking to a clear, American topic that would leave the reader thinking. I think my mission was accomplished; I anylized the American tradition of hard work and left the reader with what I consider to be a reletively thoughtful and provacative question: "Have Americans become too preoccupied with succeeding that we have forgotten the ultimate goal of happiness?" In comparison with my first post, I took on a more American related theme, and in the process I even found myself doubting the necessity of this work-aholic American tradition.

But finally, my blog posts progressed to a point where I was able write about issues that interested me without shoving it down the throat of the reader. Consider the blog post in which I addressed Mr. O'Conner's claim that poor people live under a form of slavery. Even though I took an opposing stance, I did so much more respectively, leaving room for the reader to arrive at his/her own conclusions even after hearing my stance. Unlike my very first blog post about the economy (mentioned above), I guided the reader through my reasoning, instead of just telling him/her the way it is. I did this by breaking up my points into three main parts, and following a train of thought which kept the reader fascinated (I hope) but not overwhelmed. The final question was also a powerful one, where I asked the reader to consider the ultimate question: are poor people essentially slaves?

In retrospect of my work, I'm pleasantly surprised at what I've been able to accomplish. I was able to stick to the issues that interested me while at the same time keeping my questions open ended and leaving room for disagreement with the reader. Although I'm often tempted to ram my opinions down people's throats, I found a way to lay down my opinions while being respectful and acknowledging the possibility of disagreement. These changes have allowed my writing to become less provocative, while holding on to my values and maintaining my convictions. I still haven't been able to do this perfectly, but I hope my general trend of improvement will continue throughout the year and my writing will continue to become more concise, pertinent, and above all, thoughtful.,              

Sensible Media Reporting - Can We Actually Get Some?

A few days ago Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor led a particularly interesting discussion about the media, and its role during the election process. Maybe I don't have a life but I've been following the election process quite closely, rooting for somebody I won't mention in this post. But what struck me as odd was the indecisiveness of the American people in choosing the republican nominee, and even more so the hysterical reaction by the media that accompanied this indecisiveness.

First it began with Michele Bachmann. After she won the Iowa Straw Poll and did well in a certain debate, she seemed unstoppable. To everyone's surprise, her poll numbers skyrocketed and the media hysteria began, with headlines about the unstoppable Bachmann surge all over the place. Then, Rick Perry entered the field with very high poll numbers, only to come crashing down once people realized his debating skills were a little below average, to say the least. Once again, this incident was accompanied with media hysteria left and right - one second proclaiming the election already essentially over and the next pronouncing Perry's campaign, well, dead.

Then came Herman Cain, who must have said the number 9 more than anybody else alive in that time period. In fact, to the questions where he couldn't think of a proper response, he resorted to the one answer he could always count on: 999. The media dubbed his serge in the polls and his overall support as the "Cain-Train", and everybody knew that if you didn't support the black guy saying 999 over and over again you were living on the moon. Following the "Cain-Train", came Newt Gingrich, who the media was sure would be the final nominee. But to everyone's "surprise", Gingrich fell just like everybody else, even though people in the media had once again been labeling Gingrich as the unstoppable force in the race. 

Finally came the surge of Rick Santorum - but don't even get me started on him.

So what does this tell us? Are people really that unsure of their political views that they hopped around from candidate to candidate, coincidentally at the same time? Or was there an unnoticed media force propelling one candidate to the front of the pack after another? Take a look at an article (here) written at the start of Santorum's "surge". As soon as he barely hit third place, the media started beating on its drums and telling everybody that Santorum was somehow making an enormous move (even though it wan't even that big). The article wrote that Santorum had "leapfrogged", and described his campaign as "surging". To nobody's surprise, Santorum picked up another 9% in the time leading up to the Iowa caucuses, with everybody under the impression that he was somehow the true conservative that they had been looking for all along.

In my opinion, these surges happen only because of the media. True, polls do change, and some candidates pick up steam every once in a while. But without the media telling people what to think and why they should jump on the bandwagon, I think poll number would change much more subtly. What do you think?